Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 441 = 1990 MLD 195
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 1975, decided on 9th October, 1989,
Presented By: Before Muhammad Zubair, J
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant. Aslam Uns for the State.

MAZ14AR HUSSAIN--Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 5(2)

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---S.5(2)---Pakistan Army Act (XXXI of 1952)---Confession---No provision exists in the Army Act for recording confessional statement during course of investigation by virtue of S.5(2) Cr.P.C.---[Confession]. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---Ss.5(2), 164 & 364---Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.80---Pakistan Army Act (XXXI of 1952)---Confession---Army Authorities for recording confession of accused are legally bound to follow procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code and have to produce accused before Magistrate for recording judicial confession after observing all formalities laid down in Ss.164 & 364, Cr.P.C. and then judicial confession would be admissible in evidence under S.80 of Evidence Act. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---Ss.164 & 364---Judicial confession---Confession recorded in compliance with provisions of Ss.164 & 364, Cr.P.C. becomes judicial confession to which law attaches great sanctity being free from duress and undue influence---Conviction can be based upon such confession if corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence. Admission-- ---Admission made by a person whether it amounted to a confession or not, cannot be split up and part of it used against him---An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. Rahim Bakhsh v. Crown P L D 1952 F C 1 rel. Confession-- ---Statement of accused made before Summary Military Court could not be termed as judicial confession as it was not recorded by observing formalities laid down in S.164, Cr.P.C.---Such statement at the best could be termed as extra -judicial confession, but still it would not be relevant under the Evidence Act, as accused was not facing charge of murder before Summary Military Court. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---S.304, Part I---Appreciation of evidence---Trial Court erred in law in relying upon inadmissible piece of evidence which was neither judicial confession nor extra judicial confession  in  the  eye  of  law  and  no  conviction  could  be  recorded  on  this   statement---State counsel admitted that if this piece…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register